[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 
                                  1994

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
making supplemental appropriations for these Departments and Agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes; 
and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
general debate be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be 
equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1657


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4603, with Mr. Brown of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been read the 
first time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce].
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee and the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary, for their 
assistance in supporting four projects in western New York which I 
brought to their attention earlier this year. In particular, I want to 
thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Mollohan for their support in this 
regard. These four proposals are referenced in the committee report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1995 Commerce-Justice-State-Judiciary 
appropriations bill which the House is considering today.
  First, the committee listed ten proposals, including the Project 
Connect Consortium, which is a proposed fiber optic, interactive video 
communication network in western New York, describing the projects as 
`` * * * worthwhile projects for demonstration projects.'' I am pleased 
that the committee is urging the Commerce Department `` * * * to 
examine the * * * proposals and provide grants if warranted, and report 
back its intentions to the Committee.''
  I have met several times, here in Washington and in western New York, 
with officials involved with the development of project connect. I am 
totally persuaded that it has the potential of forging new ground in 
the development of the information superhighway in the United States. 
It filed a grant application with the Department of Commerce on May 15, 
and I am hopeful that this action by the committee will help persuade 
the Department to look on that application favorably.

  Second, Mr. Speaker, the committee supported my proposal to try to 
locate Federal prison facilities near existing or expanding State or 
local facilities in order to achieve savings through sharing of 
infrastructure and in other ways. Last year I worked hard to obtain 
$10.3 million to build a new Federal detention facility to serve the 
needs of both the Buffalo district of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Marshals Service, and this year I 
urged the committee to consider recommending that this new facility be 
sited adjacent to the existing and soon-to-be expanded Niagara County 
Jail in Lockport, NY. I have met with local officials as well as 
officials of the Federal agencies which are involved in this issue on 
numerous occasions. I am therefore very pleased that the committee 
report endorses this recommendation, suggesting that the U.S. Bureau of 
Prisons should `` * * * work with local officials to determine the 
feasibility of such an approach.'' I believe that the Niagara County 
site will be an ideal one on which to test this cost-savings theory.
  Third, in response to my concern about the need to curb haphazard 
land development and protect the natural beauty of Niagara Falls, I 
applaud the committee for including $100,000 for the State Department's 
Office of Canadian Affairs to `` * * * analyze transboundary issues and 
propose a plan of action to guide New York and the Canadian province of 
Ontario in establishing a commission to develop a comprehensive zoning 
and development plan for the preservation of the area around Niagara 
Falls on both sides of the border.'' I have no doubt that this will be 
the start of a new and better approach toward protecting this wonder of 
the world.
  Fourth and last, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the committee for 
accepting my suggestion that the Justice Department's Office of 
Juvenile Justice Programs consider discretionary grants `` * * * to a 
non-governmental, early intervention counseling program that works with 
the courts to assist young men and women charged with criminal offenses 
for the first time and who are at risk of stigmatization and 
recidivism.'' This describes what has been called the First Time-Last 
Time program which was founded in 1979 by the Erie County Sheriff's 
Department and the western New York Chapter of the National Conference 
of Christians and Jews [NCCJ] to deal with first-time offenders and 
seek ways of ensuring that recidivism will not occur.
  I have met on several occasions with both public officials and 
representatives of NCCJ in western New York. They have a record of 
success that is worthy of emulation throughout the nation. Accordingly, 
I hope that the Justice Department will concur with the committee and 
support this excellent program when it submits an application for a 
discretionary grant from the Justice Department later this year.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman 
Mollohan for their responsiveness to these ideas. I look forward to 
working with them and our colleagues as this bill moves forward toward 
enactment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MOLLOHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to present this 
evening the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I thank most sincerely my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the ranking 
minority member on our committee, for his cooperation and active 
participation in developing this legislation.

                              {time}  1700

  He is an especially capable Member of this Congress. His suggestions 
has been very valuable and are certainly incorporated in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly fortunate that the expertise of the 
chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], has been on call, as he 
has been generous in making himself available to assist me since I have 
assumed these new responsibilities. His distinguished and capable 
leadership of this subcommittee for many years is widely admired, and I 
personally appreciate his friendship and continuing guidance.
  Mr. Chairman, the members of our subcommittee are a talented group. 
To a person, each has made real contributions to this bill. They have 
been active in its crafting. Their input has been incorporated, and I 
appreciate their hard work and cooperation.
  In addition to the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], and 
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], our subcommittee includes the 
chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Carr], the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price], the gentleman from Arizona 
[Mr. Kolbe], and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to our new full committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for the assistance he has given to 
me on this bill. Despite his new responsibilities, he has always made 
himself available to work on the many challenges faced during the 
workup of this bill. He is doing an excellent job, and I appreciate his 
help.
  Mr. Chairman, every Member involved in this legislative process knows 
how crucial are our hard-working, professional staff. Our subcommittee 
is blessed with an especially fine group of professionals headed by 
staff director John Osthaus, and assistants George Schafer and Sally 
Chadbourne, and on detail from the Commerce Department's Office of 
Comptroller is Soo Jin Kwon, and we appreciate all of their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill provides a total of $26,549,129,000 in new 
budget authority for fiscal year 1995. This amount is $1,181,452,000 
below the President's budget request for budget authority, and it is 
$35 million below the 602(b) budget authority allocation for the bill.
  The bill provides a total of $25,298,000,000 in outlays for fiscal 
year 1995, and this amount is $771,668,000 below the President's budget 
request for outlays and $35 million below the outlay allocation for the 
bill.

  Mr. Chairman, this bill is important to Members here and to their 
constituents. This bill funds most of this country's crime-fighting 
initiatives, and, my fellow Members, when your constituents ask what 
you are doing to fight crime, you can point to this bill for the 
substantive answer. We heard President Clinton's request to enhance 
Federal law enforcement, and paramount in our consideration was a 
commitment to employ effectively Federal resources and assets to 
reinforce the men and women on the front lines in the fight on crime 
across this great Nation. Addressing our Nation's crime problems is 
perhaps our most pressing national concern.
  It is impossible to turn on the TV or radio, read a newspaper, open 
constituent mail, or attend a town meeting without hearing about the 
terrible problem of crime in our neighborhoods and people's fears and 
concerns about it. The House has responded by enthusiastically passing 
a comprehensive crime bill. That legislation is, as we speak, in 
conference with the Senate.
  But, Mr. Chairman, it is this bill where we turn our words into 
action. We are committed to being as responsive as we can to this 
priority, and we have used every tool we have. We have used every bit 
of creativity to focus the money we have to where it is most needed and 
will be most effective--to the men and women who fight crime and to the 
communities who support them.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill includes $1.3 billion for community policing, 
which will put on the street in our local communities 39,000 additional 
police officers. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, funding for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agencies, two 
of our most crucial crime-fighting Federal agencies, has been restored 
to their fiscal 1994 levels, and we provide additional funding to 
enable the FBI to hire 160 new agents and the Drug Enforcement Agency 
to hire 132 new agents.
  I am also extremely pleased the committee has restored and enhanced 
the Byrne formula grant program. The bill includes funding to more than 
double the size of this highly effective program. The expanded program 
will provide grants that States can use for law enforcement purposes, 
for incarceration of illegal aliens, and improved criminal 
recordkeeping as required by the Brady law.
  All of this is done with an enhanced program which amounts to 125 
percent more Byrne grant money to each State than they received last 
year. The effectiveness of the Byrne formula grant program is reflected 
by its popularity with your State and local law enforcement officials, 
the people who confront our crime problem every single day.
  I know that more than half of you, more than half of my colleagues, 
more than half of the Members of this House of Representatives have 
signed petitions to this subcommittee in support of the Byrne program, 
and we have been responsive to those concerns.
  We also responded to your concerns about prison space, and this bill 
includes almost $52 million to activate or expand 11 new Federal 
prisons.
  The committee has also heard the concerns of Members from States 
along our southern border. We significantly enhance border control by 
providing an increase of $54 million to hire 700 new Border 
Patrol agents, to reassign 250 agents to the line, and to backfill 
those agents with 110 support personnel. This provision will provide a 
total of almost 1,000 new Border Patrol agents on the line in 1995. 
This is in addition to the 600 Border Patrol agents who were added to 
last year's bill.

  Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the President's immigration initiative is of 
great importance to many Members. In addition to the enhancement of the 
Border Patrol, the committee nearly fully funded the request for 
expedited deportation and review of asylum cases.
  Let us not forget that crime prevention is a critical component of 
our crime control efforts. This year the committee has provided a 35-
percent increase for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 
programs. We feel that it is imperative to fund programs which help our 
young people avoid the path to crime.
  Mr. Chairman, of course this bill is responsible for much more than 
crime fighting. The bill contains funding for a reinvigorated Commerce 
Department. The Commerce programs are the centerpiece of the 
President's efforts to increase U.S. industrial competitiveness. The 
committee has strongly supported President Clinton's initiatives to 
create jobs through civilian technology and economic development 
initiatives by increasing levels of funding in certain strategic areas.
  We have included $842 million for the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, and within this amount we provided the full request of 
$61 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. This 
funding will enable the Department to establish additional 
manufacturing technology centers and support services to help basic 
industry America introduce new technologies to shop floors. We also 
provide $431 million for the Advanced Technology Program, or ATP. ATP 
helps industry help itself. U.S. industry defines the research 
priorities, and then industry and the Federal Government share the 
costs of pursing high-risk technology development which holds a promise 
for new commercial products.
  The committee included $70 million in the bill for the very popular 
information infrastructure grant program. This funding will provide for 
another round of demonstration projects to highlight innovative ways 
schools, hospitals, and other public service entities can gain access 
to the latest information technology available in the deployment of the 
information highway.

                              {time}  1710

  We have funded the Economic Development Administration at $371 
million, a $50-million increase over last year's level. EDA serves as 
the central agency for technical and financial assistance to 
economically distressed areas. Within this amount we have included $175 
million for the traditional public works grant program and $80 million 
for targeted grants for defense conversion.
  Turning to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we 
have provided $1.8 billion for the agency's programs. We have provided 
almost $600 million related to the modernization of the National 
Weather Service, including the acquisition of improved radar and other 
automated systems associated with the modernization effort, the 
continuation of the NOAA geostationary and polar satellite systems 
necessary for collecting improved weather data, and staffing for the 
new radars and weather service facilities.
  The committee has also included an increase of $43 million over 
fiscal year 1994 amounts for the National Marine Fisheries Service for 
enhancement of fisheries management programs. This funding is necessary 
to address the virtual collapse of fisheries in New England and the 
Pacific Northwest by building sustainable U.S. fisheries and protecting 
threatened and endangered species.
  The amounts recommended in the bill also include restoration of 
funding for other NOAA programs important to Members, such as regional 
climate centers, national undersea research centers, and zebra mussel 
research.


                     small business administration

  Also on the job creation front, the bill provides a total of $796 
million for the Small Business Administration, an increase of $10 
million over the President's request.
  In this time of economic recovery, the committee recognizes the 
importance of SBA. The growth of small business is truly critical to 
the economic health of our Nation, and SBA is the central U.S. 
Government agency responsible for encouraging and nurturing that 
growth.
  Across America, traditional industries have been crippled, and we 
have begun to work to rebuild and diversify our economy. The success of 
our Nation's small businesses is integral to this process.
  For those of you facing economic crisis in your district due to base 
closures or other Federal Government cutbacks, the loss of a major 
contractor or employer, or simply the effect of years of recession, I 
urge you to support this committee's funding recommendations for SBA.
  In fiscal year 1993, loans made through the section 7(a) business 
loan program were responsible for creating or maintaining 380,000 jobs 
nationwide--across every one of my colleagues' districts. And this 
year, by providing $327 million for the business loans program account, 
we will leverage loans to small businesses totaling $10.5 billion.
  Also, our recommendation will provide funding for many other valuable 
programs under the SBA--programs that provide assistance to women, 
minorities, handicapped individuals, and veterans trying to overcome 
barriers to achieve success.


                     fiscal year 1994 supplemental

  In title VII of the bill, the subcommittee has provided funding for 
important supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1994. We have 
provided $400 million in emergency supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1994 for the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loans 
Program account to meet the remaining disaster loan needs of the 
victims of the Los Angeles earthquake.
  We have also provided $670 million in supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1994 to pay a portion of the assessments for U.S. 
peacekeeping operations which are estimated to total $1.1 billion by 
the end of fiscal year 1994. In title V of the bill we have provided an 
additional $288 million for fiscal year 1995 to pay the second year of 
the multiyear plan to pay off the fiscal year 1994 peacekeeping 
arrearage.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the subject of peacekeeping 
because there will be some discussion during the debate on the bill. I 
would like to point out to the Members that beginning at page 114 of 
our report there is a rather lengthy, detailed, factual recitation of 
the history of peacekeeping. I think it would be instructive to the 
Members to read this prior to debate on the bill. There is also a table 
which sets forth the peacekeeping missions, the amounts related to 
those missions that represent deficits for the year 1994 and the date 
that those missions were committed to.
  I would also note with regard to peacekeeping, Mr. Chairman, that 
legitimate concerns that Members have had for some time are certainly 
being addressed and I commend the authorizing committee for doing so.
  There have been concerns about the rate which represents the United 
States' share of peacekeeping operations. The rate for some time has 
been 30.4 percent. There is certainly an effort to reduce that. That 
effort is agreed to by a broad cross section of the Members.
  We commend the authorizers for providing in their bill, which we just 
passed in this House not very many weeks ago, a reduction of our share 
of the peacekeeping from that 30.4 percent rate down to 25 percent 
beginning with fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, I have talked about the increases provided in the bill 
and now I need to mention some of the reductions. As I noted earlier 
the 602(b) allocation for the bill was $1.2 billion below the 
President's request. Therefore, the subcommittee was forced to make a 
number of reductions which required very difficult choices. The 
committee cut the following amounts below the budget requests for each 
of the following. With regard to the Federal Judiciary, we reduced the 
President's request by 218 million; for the State Department, we 
reduced the President's request by $102 million; with respect to the 
U.S. Information Agency, we reduced the President's request by $78 
million. We reduced the President's request for the Legal Services 
Corporation by $85 million. The Maritime Administration was reduced by 
$125 million. The Justice Department request was reduced by $402 
million. The Commerce Department request was reduced by $175 million.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to bring this bill to you 
today. Our committee has worked very hard to draft a bill which 
achieves balance, balance between program demands and budget authority 
and outlay limitations; balance between the President's important crime 
and civilian technology investment initiatives and proven agency 
programs; balance between administration priorities and Congressional 
priorities on both sides of the aisle.
  So I bring to you what I believe is unquestionably a fair bill. This 
bill is not everything to everyone, but given the fiscal constraints 
facing us today, Congress must strive for responsible compromise. This 
bill represents such responsible compromise.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to support our work.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa, certainly.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia, and 
the gentleman from Kentucky and other members of the subcommittee for 
developing this bill. This is one of the most controversial bills and 
one of the most important bills that we have in the Congress. It 
includes the entire Judiciary, a separate branch of our Government that 
does not have a constituency. Members are always anxious to vote for 
more judgeships, but they do not want to pay for them. The subcommittee 
has to handle that problem in this bill.
  This bill also handles the administration of the overseas officers of 
the State Department. Again, there are people who are quick to 
criticize what happens overseas, but they do not like to provide funds 
for the State Department.
  Then there are the export programs, technology and research programs 
that are so important to our competition, to our being competitive in 
the world; and of course the business section of the bill, and the 
coastal programs.
  Then there are 21 independent agencies in this bill including the 
SEC, the SBA, and the FCC. About one-half of this bill is not 
authorized, which is the highest percent of any bill brought to the 
floor. The authorization committees have not been able to get these 
programs authorized by the time the appropriations bill reaches the 
floor.
  This makes it even more controversial and even harder to handle.
  I just want to say that this one of the most important bills and I 
really commend the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for what they have done here in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ROGERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my comments, I must first 
praise the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] the new chairman 
of the subcommittee. He has taken the helm of one of the most diverse 
and complex appropriations bills there is, as the former chairman, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] has just indicated, and while we miss 
the leadership of Chairman Smith on this subcommittee, we are extremely 
pleased with the work of the new chairman. In just a few short months 
he has impressed all of us, particularly this Member, with his 
dedication, his knowledge and leadership on this subcommittee. He has 
done a tremendous job in a very difficult year, treating all Members 
with fairness and respect and working to accommodate a divergent set of 
needs and priorities. The chairman and all the members of the 
subcommittee are to be commended for their diligence in crafting a bill 
which, I believe, Members should support.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill. Having 
said that, I must divide the bill into two parts, as I have said 
before. There is the U.N. peacekeeping portion, and then there is 
everything else. I will have some words about peacekeeping at the 
conclusion, but first let me address the everything-else portion of the 
bill.
  I must reiterate to the Members the diverse and competing needs of 
this subcommittee. One of the smaller appropriations bills in total 
dollars, this bill is certainly one of the most diverse and funds some 
of the Congress' highest priorities. The bill funds everything from the 
war on crime and drugs, one of the top issues facing our Nation today, 
to programs to promote economic development, increase our 
competitiveness, build democracy overseas, and promote our interests 
abroad.
  Again this year, Mr. Chairman, like other subcommittees, pressing 
needs exceeded our limited resources. Due to a constrained 602(b) 
allocation we are $1.2 billion below the President's request for 
programs in this bill. Unfortunately, funding constraints did not 
permit us to do everything we would like to have done, and many 
programs are held at or below the fiscal 1994 level, but we have 
provided increases for the highest priorities, especially the war on 
crime and drugs.
  For the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a 
total of $12 billion for the department, a 29-percent increase over 
fiscal 1994, including $2.4 billion to fund initiatives authorized in 
the crime bill such as community policing. In addition, we have not 
only restored, but given, a 125 percent increase in the Byrne formula 
grant program for law enforcement grants to all 50 States and their 
police and sheriffs' departments.

  I am particularly pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the bill rejects the 
large cuts the administration proposed for our core Federal law 
enforcement programs. Not only does the bill reject the President's 
proposed cut of 790 people from the FBI, it adds resources to put an 
additional 760 agents on the street, and for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, we rejected those proposed cuts and added an additional 
132 agents, new agents, to stop drug traffickers in their tracks.
  On immigration control, Mr. Chairman, we have built on the firm 
foundation established last year providing almost 1,000 more Border 
Patrol agents on the front lines. When this bill is signed into law, we 
will have added over 1,500 agents in the last 2 years to protect our 
borders from the flood of illegal immigrants, driving costs through the 
roof, not to mention other things.
  For the Commerce Department, significant increases for the 
Administration's technology initiatives and the information 
superhighway. We continue National Weather Service modernization, as 
well as provide moneys for the EDA to assist economically distressed 
communities and those hard hit by defense cutbacks.
  For the Judiciary, as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith] noted, a 4-
percent increase to help the courts cope with continuing demands to 
fight the war on crime.
  Again this year the Department of State will be forced to live with 
less than current services. Cut by almost 8 percent last year, the 
State Department's request has been cut significantly, largely to fund 
U.N. peacekeeping activities, and that brings me to the second part of 
the bill, the part which troubles me greatly: U.N. peacekeeping.
  Mr. Chairman, peacekeeping is simply a runaway fiscal train. Six 
years ago peacekeeping costs totaled a mere $30 million to the United 
States. This year that price tag, our share, is $1.5 billion, eating up 
big portions of the other priorities that we would like to fund in this 
bill, but simply cannot due to peacekeeping demands. Members must 
understand that for every dollar that goes to peacekeeping a dollar is 
taken away from other high priority programs right here in the United 
States. This bill contains $1.2 billion to pay for the U.S. assessed 
contribution for U.N. peacekeeping activities. That figure includes 
$222 million for expected 1995 requirements for peacekeeping, and we 
all know that is going to be way too little. In addition, $288 million 
is provided to partially pay for what the United Nations says is an 
arrearage that we owe for past bills, and then finally the bill 
includes a separate 1994 supplemental embedded in the fiscal 1995 bill 
providing $670 million, and that amount is, again, to cover only a 
portion of the fiscal 1994 peacekeeping bills they say are pass due.
  Mr. Chairman, the total price tag for the arrearage is $1.1 billion. 
That is $1.1 billion in bills for which our fiscal 1994 appropriation 
could not cover. And let me put Members on notice now. This will not be 
the last supplemental for peacekeeping that we will face this year. 
There is only $222 million for fiscal 1995 peacekeeping requirements in 
this bill. The tab for this year, 1994, is $1.2 billion. So, we know we 
are going to be faced with a huge billion-dollar, roughly, supplemental 
for peacekeeping from the United Nations before the year is out. That 
is too much.
  Sadly, Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayer is not being treated 
fairly at the United Nations. The United Nations continues to demand 
that we pay more than our fair share. Nearly one-third of the total 
peacekeeping U.N. operations are billed to Uncle Sam. All the while our 
allies pay a greatly reduced rate. The next biggest contributor to 
peacekeeping is Japan who pays only 12.5 percent; Germany, only 8.9 
percent; Britain, a mere 6.4 percent; China, a member of the Security 
Council, nine-tenths of 1 percent. And Uncle Sucker is billed for 31.4 
percent. It is too much.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, our taxpayers are footing the bill to pay 
for billions in military support for the United Nations for which we 
get no credit or thanks. The United Nations is putting us in a fiscal 
noose, and we simply cannot ask our citizens to sacrifice anymore. The 
time is long past due, Mr. Chairman, that we demand equity and burden 
sharing at the United Nations. Despite the good will and the best 
efforts of both the Bush and Clinton administrations and pleas from the 
Congress over the years, all attempts to reduce our share for 
peacekeeping have been met with a refusal, even to budge. In fact, we 
say our rate is 30.4 percent. The United Nations says, ``no,'' it has 
been increased. It is now 31.7 percent. We asked for a reduction. We 
get an increase. History has shown that the only time the United 
Nations listens to us and reforms itself is when Uncle Sam pulls on 
these purse strings. In fact, that is how we got our U.N. general 
budget contribution reduced 20 years ago to 25 percent on a bill, an 
appropriations bill out of this subcommittee. We said we are going to 
pay 25 percent of the general budget of the United Nations and no more. 
The United Nations later came along and said, OK, they passed a 
resolution affirming that. I say it is time to do the same thing now 
with peacekeeping to reduce it to the same rate.

                              {time}  1730

  It is time Congress stepped up to the plate and demanded burden 
sharing at the United Nations. I regret that this bill does not do 
that. How much longer can we justify sending billions to the United 
Nations when they refuse to treat us fairly.
  Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment today to force the 
United Nations to treat the American taxpayer fairly and with respect. 
My amendment would have limited to no more than 25 percent the amount 
the United States could pay for a peacekeeping operation. Twenty-five 
percent is what is fair and what is right. Thirty percent, what we pay 
now, or 31.7 percent, what they are billing us, is too much. But the 
Committee on Rules refused to make that amendment in order so the 
Members of this House could work their will on the issue.
  I hope as the House continues consideration of this bill, and, hear 
me out, I hope as we consider this bill, there will come a time during 
that debate where we will be able to address this critical issue, and I 
think we will, so hold your change.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the bill, with the exception of the 
peacekeeping portion, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I 
think the gentleman is raising a very, very important and significant 
point. As I understand it, not only do we pay all the expenses 
attendant to housing the United Nations in New York City and bringing 
all of the diplomatic corps to the United States for that purpose, but 
then for peacekeeping purposes, we pay 31.7 percent of all peacekeeping 
missions. And then, since the United States provides most of the 
military hardware and uniform personnel and operations, we pay all of 
the costs attendant with United States personnel involved in those 
peacekeeping missions as well, such as the feeding of the people in 
Bosnia and the feeding of the people in Northern Iraq. Is that correct?
  Mr. ROGERS. As well as the transportation costs of personnel and 
equipment and food stuffs and all of that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. You add all that in, we get no credit for all of 
those expenses. We still pay the highest proportion of any country in 
the world. It seems the U.S. taxpayer could get a better deal, and I 
think the gentleman has raised a very, very significant point. I hope 
the gentleman's amendment is not only allowed in order, but ultimately 
adopted.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the gentleman that 
you have increased the border patrol by almost 1,000 agents, which will 
take the total number of border patrol agents well over 5,000. I think 
we need ultimately 10,000, but you are right on track. The Republican 
Research Committee Task Force on Immigration worked out a schedule 
which is manifested in an amendment we passed on the crime bill of a 
little over 1,000 agents per year. You are following that, you are 
tracking that very effectively.
  I might just say to the gentleman, as we put these agents in 
important places, like El Paso and San Diego, the smugglers start to 
try to go around the concentrations of agents. And in Imperial County 
in California, we are now seeing smuggling of both illegal aliens and 
cocaine surge. I know it is the gentleman's intention that the border 
patrol agents now be put at other strategic points where smuggling is 
beginning to increase as a result of the concentrations that we have 
already in place.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me briefly respond. 
The gentleman from California came to Chairman Mollohan and myself 
early on pleading for more Border Patrol agents. We were able to shift 
around, and, through sacrifice of other priorities, and found moneys to 
do just that. So the gentleman is to be commended for his dedication to 
this issue, not just this year, but last year and previous years. 
Thanks mainly to his efforts, we now have, or will have by the end of 
this coming fiscal year, 1,500 new agents assigned to border patrol 
that we otherwise probably would not have had. So I thank the gentleman 
for his great work.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. He and the chairman have done a 
superb job in this area.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from California for his input on this issue during the process of 
formulating this bill, and thank the ranking minority Member for 
bringing Mr. Hunter's concerns to the committee. It was his amendment 
last year that enhanced the border patrol on this bill, and we 
appreciate his input.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I had a 21-minute statement, but I am going 
to try to wrap it into 2 minutes. Most of it was to just tell what a 
terrific job our new chairman has done, and of course the very talented 
staff of our full committee chairman. He already knows that, but the 
very talented staff of John Osthaus and Sally Chadbourne and George 
Schafer and Sue Jin Kwon, have done a wonderful job. They have been 
spending every day and weekend and evening working of this bill.
  It was a tough bill, because the White House wanted $27 billion, if 
you put all of their requests together, and the budget resolution only 
gave us $26 billion. There was actually a gap of $1.2 billion that we 
had to make up. That was tough, because this really does fund the 
administration's principle initiatives: fighting crime, enabling our 
economy to grow, expanding international trade in a peaceful, stable 
world.
  So what the subcommittee did, under the excellent leadership of the 
gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, was in fact to expand our 
ability to fight crime, put 39,000 more police officers on the street. 
We did not accept cuts in the FBI, and in fact the subcommittee added 
almost 400 more FBI personnel. Instead of taking the requested cutback 
on the Drug Enforcement Agency, the subcommittee added another $20.5 
million, and 75 new drug enforcement agents.
  Conscious of the Members' concern about our poorest borders and the 
number of illegal immigrants coming in, we added nearly 1,000 border 
patrol personnel, on top of the 600 last year. So that gives us about 
5,000, I think, total border patrol people. It is as much as the 
subcommittee could possibly fund, another priority, certainly, of the 
House of Representatives.
  In terms of the economy, we leveraged more than $10 billion in new 
loans for small businesses, through a $79 million increase in 
appropriation. We doubled the appropriation for the National Institute 
of Standards and Advanced Technology Program. We nearly tripled the 
appropriation for the National Information Infrastructure Program.
  The fact is this bill helps every single one of our constituents in 
every community, large and small, rich and poor. It is a good bill. It 
certainly deserves the support of every single one of our colleagues.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
very able leader of the subcommittee from our side, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my wise friend from Kentucky for 
yielding.
  The fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill for Commerce-Justice-State 
is a bill that has a lot of provisions that many of my colleagues can 
support. I want to commend the newest cardinal, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], for doing a superb job, along with the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], in a very difficult and complex 
bill. To the maximum extent, they have taken care of a lot of programs 
that all of us are interested in, from Border Patrol to programs that 
bolster exports to initiatives that foster the development of emerging 
technologies to help us improve our country's competitive position.
  However, as has been pointed out in this debate, we are spending an 
enormous amount on peacekeeping in this bill, $1.2 billion. In my 
opinion, this is an excessive amount, without thinking a bit about what 
we are doing in terms of long-term priorities.
  In particular, there is a $670 million fiscal year 1994. I began my 
remarks by saying this is a 1995 bill. We are reaching back to 1994 to 
try to include $670 million in supplemental funds.

                              {time}  1740

  I think it is important for my colleagues to understand why that 1994 
money is available. It is there because when we acted on the emergency 
appropriation to help cover the cost of the Los Angeles earthquake; 
this Congress rescinded $3.2 billion in funds previously appropriated 
for some 64 programs, including education, agriculture, and home 
ownership for low-income programs, generating savings of nearly $600 
million in outlays. We pulled the savings out of those programs and put 
them into this supplemental. How many of us have been on this floor 
looking at the appropriation bills as they have gone through and 
saying, we need more money to cover shortfalls in health, in housing, 
in education, and in crime, yet $700 million in this bill of 1994 money 
that is taken away from domestic and other programs is being sent up to 
pay assessments at the United Nations
  Now, that is exactly where the money is coming from. I want to say to 
my colleagues that I think it is unjustified. I think it is unjustified 
because that $670 million is on top of, get this, $533 million in 
fiscal year 1995 money, making a total of $1.2 billion in this bill to 
pay up at the United Nations; $670 million of it from 1994 money, taken 
from domestic and other programs, and $533 million in this bill in new 
money.
  My friends, before we make such a decision, we need to remember what 
happened when we passed the United Nations Participation Act with the 
understanding that we would be a full partner in financing decisions. 
Yet for 20 years, my friends, 20 years our Government has tried to get 
some equity on the United Nations assessment formula. It is not 
equitable. It is not fair, and they simply brush us off at the United 
Nations
  Listen to this now. We are being asked to vote in this bill to pay 
United Nations peacekeeping at an assessment rate of 30.4 percent, for 
a total of $1.2 billion. What is going on around the world, friends? 
The Japanese are paying 12.5 percent. Germany's assessment to the 
United Nations, 8.9; Russian federation, 8.6; United Kingdom, 6.3; 
France, 7.6. And China, who votes with us an equal member in the 
Security Council, 0.095 percent. United States, 30.4 percent. The 
United States is actually assessed at 31.7 percent but only pays 30.4 
percent. We have a billion-dollar decision that we are going to have to 
make.
  When we look at the Federal budget in total, we see that peacekeeping 
costs have risen from $30 million in 1989 to over $1.2 billion in 1994. 
It is time to begin to prioritize.
  My friend from Kentucky is going to offer an amendment that will 
attempt to do that; applying the 25-percent rule which, my friends, we 
already voted for. It is in the authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 
and beyond.
  This amendment that my friend will offer will say, apply that 
formula, 25 percent, to the fiscal year 1994 and the fiscal year 1995 
money. And if we do that, what we will be doing is saving several 
hundred million dollars.
  At this point, all we have is a promise to negotiate a reduction in 
the assessment rate some time in the future. We know the phrase 
``manana,'' sometime tomorrow.
  My friend's amendment will say, if we have to appropriate or even 
think of appropriating over a billion dollars in this bill, let us get 
the reduction now and let us put it into law. That is what this bill 
is. This is the law of the United States, and we are the Nation's 
stewards as lawmakers.
  Let us vote to keep this payment at the rate of 25 percent and save 
the American taxpayer some dollars.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy on the subject of the Auto Parts Advisory Committee under the 
Commerce Department's supervision.
  Mr. Chairman, the ongoing United States-Japan Framework Talks have 
reached a critical stage, and yet APAC has not met at all this year. I 
would urge Secretary Brown in the strongest possible terms to expedite 
the reformation APAC by reappointing APAC members of good standing and 
to set the first meeting of APAC for the earliest possible date.
  The U.S. auto parts manufacturing sector is a diverse, $100 billion 
industry, with 4,000 firms directly employing over 700,000 U.S. 
workers. The Auto Parts Advisory Committee is a valuable forum in which 
this industry may be heard.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio. It is my understanding that the Fair Trade in 
Auto Parts, Act, which was recently extended for 5 years, reauthorized 
the Auto Parts Advisory Committee. I also understand that the 
Department of Commerce has solicited congressional input on the 
appropriate membership of the advisory committee, and that the 
Department is in the process of appointing new members of the 
committee.
  I join my colleague from Ohio in urging the Commerce Department to 
set the first meeting of the Auto Parts Advisory Committee at the 
earliest possible date. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
matter to the subcommittee's attention.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a very hard-working member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in support of the fiscal year 1995 Commerce, Justice, State, 
and Judiciary bill.
   Mr. Chairman, all this talk that we have heard here about the 
installation of the newest member of the appropriations cardinal, I 
expect to see a red hat floating over his desk over there. But I join 
with my colleagues in commending him for the outstanding job that he 
has done, for his leadership, for his genuine efforts to accommodate 
Members' concerns.
  He has assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee midway through 
the process, a difficult circumstance, and he has proven to be a quick 
study. He has mastered the details of the bill in short order. In the 
process, we have established some new priorities that I think this 
house can enthusiastically support. We have produced a responsible bill 
that recommends a total of $26 million in discretionary budget 
authority. This is $1.2 billion below the administration's budget and 
is within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation.
  Certainly this bill is not perfect--a statement that could be made 
about most legislation we consider in this House. But, on balance, this 
is a good bill, one that responds to the widely expressed priorities of 
this body, particularly in the area of law enforcement, which I will 
focus my remarks on.
  The bill makes a clear statement that we are serious about curbing 
illegal immigration. It does so by increasing fiscal year 1994 levels 
for INS by $301.2 million.
  Funding of $54.5 million is provided for the hiring of 700 new Border 
Patrol agents and 110 support personnel. $117 million is provided for 
improvements in technology in automation, communication systems, and 
information to enhance border enforcement. The additional support 
personnel and the technology improvements will enable the agency to 
redirect 250 other support personnel to line functions.
  Put all these numbers together and you have 950 additional agents on 
our southern borders to help make them safer and more secure. The 950 
new agents, according to INS bottom-up reviews, will enable the INS to 
implement the highly successful ``El Paso'' model with high-intensity, 
line of sight, operations.
  At my request, the subcommittee has also included report language 
expressing concern about shifting illegal immigration patterns 
resulting from the reprogramming of agents in the current fiscal year. 
That reprogramming assigned 300 new agents to the San Diego sector and 
50 to El Paso, but none in between. The result was predictable. The 
gentleman from California, [Mr. Hunter] alluded to this.
  Since that time, dramatic increases in alien apprehensions have 
occurred each month in Arizona. This March, for example, alien 
apprehension were 77 percent higher than in March 1993. I will be 
watching closely to see that the INS assigns the new Border Patrol 
agents and makes adjustments with previously assigned agents to close 
this glaring gap on the border.
  But the INS and this bill reflects concerns that go beyond simply 
preventing illegal entry into the United States. The INS also has a 
vital role in the processing of legal entry into our country. With the 
passage of NAFTA, it is important to improve efficiency for the legal 
transport of goods and people between the two countries. Unfortunately, 
long and financially damaging delays in processing have become the norm 
at many ports of entry from Mexico.
  The bill moves in the right direction by including funds to expedite 
processing for regular land border crossings. Still more needs to be 
done to reduce the routine delays in border crossing--delays that 
ironically encourage illegal crossing. I will continue to work with the 
subcommittee and INS to resolve these problems.
  The bill also recognizes that costs associated with illegal 
immigration are a Federal responsibility. For the first time we have 
stepped up to the plate and included funds for the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. This fund reimburses States for the cost of 
incarcerating illegal aliens. It's high time we acknowledged that every 
illegal alien in our communities is the fault of the Federal 
Government--not local government. And its time we contributed to these 
skyrocketing and budget-breaking costs that local communities and 
States endure on a regular basis.
  A total of $804.3 million is provided in the bill for an expanded 
Byrne program. These moneys will be allocated to States for 
discretionary use on any of three Federal programs: State criminal 
alien assistance, Byrne formula grants; and State criminal records 
updates.
  The Byrne formula grants have been of critical importance in all 
States with highly organized drug trafficking networks, such as 
Arizona.
  The multijurisdictional task forces formed with funds from these 
grants have provided invaluable assistance in the war on crime. Under 
the expanded Byrne program, each State will receive a substantial 
increase in funding.
  Finally, this bill goes a long way to restore funds that were cut in 
last year's bill from key law enforcement agencies. The FBI is funded 
at a level $47.2 million above the administration's request and $120 
million above the fiscal year 1994 level. The additional funds will 
halt the proposed FTE cuts and allow the agency to hire 160 new agents 
and 234 support personnel over the fiscal year 1994 level.
  Similarly, the Drug Enforcement Agency [DEA] is $22 million above the 
administration's request and $21.8 million above fiscal year 1994 
levels. This will permit the hiring of 132 new agents above last year's 
level. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force is funded at 
$13.3 million above the request and $869,000 above fiscal year 1994.
  We cannot fight the war on crime without resources. This bill puts us 
back on track in the battle to make our communities safer. It sends a 
message that this subcommittee is serious about combating crime. 
Supporting this bill will send the same message from the entire House.

                              {time}  1750

  Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Subcommittee in a colloquy 
regarding this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I know I can speak for the bipartisan membership of the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in thanking the gentleman 
for the inclusion of funds for title XI in this bill. I understand how 
difficult it is to find funding this year. I assure the gentleman this 
provision will support the construction of many ships in U.S. shipyards 
and will create U.S. jobs.
  I would also like to address the issue of an appropriation from last 
year, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time remains unobligated. In 
fiscal year 1994 the Maritime Administration requested the authority to 
spend $118 million for the acquisition of foreign-built ships to expand 
the size of the Ready Reserve Force. Marad has failed to spend that 
money for that purpose. I believe that the $118 million can now be put 
to better use by providing initial funding for maritime reform.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will he gentleman from Illinois yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of 
the gentleman from Illinois, and I would like to briefly expand on 
those comments.
  Last year the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries opposed 
further funding for the acquisition of foreign-built vessels. The 
gentleman's predecessor also opposed the purchase of these foreign-
built vessels by Marad without notification to the Appropriations 
Committee. It is my understanding these funds remain unobligated.
  Last year the House passed H.R. 2151, the Maritime Security and 
Competitiveness Act of 1993. This bill would preserve a merchant marine 
fleet and will set up a program to help U.S. shipyards to convert to 
commercial work.
  This year in our funding bill, H.R. 4003, our committee has 
established a program to raise $1.7 billion over 10 years by increasing 
tonnage fees for all vessels entering the United States from foreign 
ports. This bill is scheduled to be reported out of the Committee on 
Ways and Means on July 15. However, to fully fund this program, we had 
hoped that the unobligated funds for the RRF would be available as 
start-up money for maritime reform.
  With $118 million, we can build 15 new U.S.-built vessels. If the 
money remains in the RRF fund, it will be used to purchase five used 
foreign-built ships.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. On behalf of myself and the gentleman from Virginia, is 
it the Member's intent to keep these funds available until H.R. 4003, 
the Maritime Administration and Promotional Reform Act of 1993, reaches 
the House floor later this session?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] 
for bringing this important matter to our attention. I recognize the 
importance of the maritime reform legislation and its potential for 
creating American jobs. I also share the gentleman's concerns about the 
purchase of foreign-made ships for the Ready Reserve Force.
  I assure both of the gentlemen that I will continue to work with them 
as this bill, the Commerce-Justice appropriations bill, and the 
authorization bill, H.R. 4003, continues to move through the Congress.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, like the chairman of the subcommittee, I will be glad 
to work with the gentleman to work through the process to try to 
relieve the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor], a very hard-working member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with 
my colleagues in thanking the chairman of the subcommittee for the fine 
job he has done. It has been a tough bill. He has been fair in leading 
it through the committee and I appreciate that fact.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many good things in the bill, many things I 
can support. There is one item that I hope we will address a little 
later in the bill. That will be the rules promulgated by the EEOC last 
October. They would virtually prohibit any religious activity in the 
workplace. When I am talking about activity, I am talking about members 
discussing among themselves, crosses, Bibles, any artifacts on the 
place.
  Mr. Chairman, I met yesterday with the NASCAR drivers who asked to 
come and talk about this bill. Let us put things in perspective. Most 
people out in my district know that the Government would mess up a one-
car funeral, and yet we have asked them to produce rules in a sensitive 
area such as religion in the workplace, and try to tell us how to 
micromanage our lives in this particular area.
  The NASCAR drivers are saying, ``We race on Saturday. We have a 
minister that comes in. We are about to get in a 4 by 4 piece of metal, 
it is about 140 degrees inside, and go somewhere between 100 and 200 
miles an hour around the track many, many times. We would like to have 
a chaplain or a minister give a bit of time there for a service.''
  NASCAR approves it, certainly the race drivers want it, and yet the 
Government would say with these regulations, ``You cannot do that.'' 
Who are we to tell that person who is participating in that sport and 
the hundreds of thousands of fans that are watching that sport that the 
Government knows best, the Government knows what should be done. They 
are making this illegal for that transaction to take place, for that 
race car driver to have that comfort, and we spread it on.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a Marine who wrote to me and said, ``Listen, if 
this passes, I am not sure that chaplains will be able to talk to the 
troops, because that is their work place. We are not sure we will be 
able to keep the Marine motto, because it is `Always Faithful to God 
and Country' and the word `God' would have to be removed.''
  We see as we unravel this ball of twine, we get in people's minds and 
in their business where the Government should not be. Mr. Chairman, I 
hope we will have a chance to correct that.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine].
  (Mr. VALENTINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4603, the Commerce, 
Justice, State, Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1995. I would like to commend Chairman Mollohan for 
bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. Chairman, because of its history of supporting the 
competitiveness of U.S. industry, the President has assigned the 
Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce as the lead 
agency for civilian industrial technology development, I believe this 
is a wise and appropriate choice.
  As a component of the Technology Administration, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology's [NIST] explicit mission has 
always been to work with industry to develop and apply technology, 
measurements, and standards to promote U.S. economic growth. More than 
any other Government agency, NIST has the outlook and expertise 
necessary to help make U.S. industry, including small business, world-
class competitors. NIST's core research and development programs make 
possible American high technology products manufactured with world-
class precision.
  Increased funding for NIST's industrial technology services, 
including the advanced technology program, will provide the necessary 
support for innovative industrial research projects. This model cost-
sharing Government program has already proven its potential. Also, 
expansion of the Manufacturing Extension Centers can help more small 
manufacturers become more competitive through access to advanced 
equipment and processes they could not afford on their own.
  Although the proposed funding levels for the programs of the 
Technology Administration are below the administration's request and 
the Science Committee's authorization contained in H.R. 820, the 
National Competitiveness Act, I realize that fiscal restraints have 
made an especially strong impact on the appropriations process this 
year. While I am sure that the larger sum would have been invested 
wisely, I accept the Appropriation Committee's budget allocation of 
cuts from the President's budget. However, I would strongly oppose any 
attempt to make any further cuts in these vital technology programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe an investment in the Department of Commerce's 
technology programs is an investment in long-term economic growth, 
market expansion, new products new businesses, and new jobs, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill, and I offer 
my deep gratitude to the chairman and the ranking member for their very 
careful attention to California issues.
  Mr. Chairman, in his first year as chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Mollohan, and ranking member Hal Rogers have done an excellent job 
addressing several items in this bill that are especially important to 
the people of California and to my constituents. I know the 
subcommittee had a difficult job working under very tight budget 
constraints and conflicting priorities. For that reason, I appreciate 
their willingness to address these important matters.
  First, I would like to thank Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Rogers for 
including language regarding the San Clemente checkpoint, which is in 
my district. INS has been studying and planning expansion of the 
checkpoint since the Carter administration. Meanwhile, the checkpoint 
is only operating part of a day, creating traffic congestion, and 
causing dangerous, high-speed chases with the border patrol 60 miles 
from the Mexican border.
  I appreciate that the committee included language to force decisive 
action on the checkpoint. If the INS does not intend to immediately 
upgrade the checkpoint so that it operates 24 hours a day, then the 
checkpoint should be closed and its resources and agents moved to the 
California border.
  The committee also included funding in this bill to put 950 more 
border patrol agents on the border. Between 2 to 3 million illegal 
aliens come into the United States every year. Over 2,000 illegal 
immigrants come across the 14-mile stretch between San Diego and Mexico 
every single day. Overwhelmed by these massive numbers, the border 
patrol simply does not have the resources and agents to enforce the 
border. I am very pleased that the committee recognized the urgency of 
this situation. Illegal immigration is a problem that affects everyone 
and it needs national attention.
  I am also pleased that the committee included funds to reimburse the 
city of San Diego for the costs of treating sewage from Tijuana. San 
Diego spends $3 million a year treating raw sewage from Mexico. Despite 
an agreement between the United States and San Diego, the Federal 
Government has been reluctant to reimburse the city for these costs 
forcing San Diegans to pick up the tab. I am pleased that for the 
second year in a row, the committee has found funds to reimburse San 
Diego.
  I appreciate the tremendous effort by the chairman and Mr. Rogers on 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to also congratulate the chairman 
and ranking member, in tight budget times, particularly for their 
emphasis on the National Institute of Standards and Technology and 
recognizing how important they are in U.S. competitiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee, especially the chairman and the ranking 
member, should be applauded for their efforts and hard work in 
developing this bill. In our current budget climate, the appropriations 
subcommittees have had an extremely difficult job to do, and I believe 
they have done it with fairness and deliberation.
  This appropriation includes funding for one of the outstanding 
technical agencies of the Federal Government which is located in my 
district--the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As you 
know, NIST is the only Federal laboratory explicitly charged with 
helping U.S. industry, and is one of our Government's most important 
instruments in support of U.S. international competitiveness.
  I am grateful for the special consideration given to NIST by Mr. 
Mollohan and Mr. Rogers in the subcommittee, and I appreciate that they 
both hold it in the same high regard as I do.
  This bill provides a total of $842 million for NIST for fiscal year 
1995. While this amount is a reduction of $92 million from the budget 
request, it is an increase of $322 million above the amounts 
appropriated for fiscal year 1994. This seems to be a substantial 
funding increase in a tight budget year, but let us put this funding 
level in context.
  At this level, NIST appropriations would be approximately 1 percent 
of the Federal research and development budget. This compares, in 
recent years, to 55 percent for the Department of Defense and over 8.5 
percent for the Department of Energy. I believe these increases are a 
modest step in the much needed reallocation of the Federal R&D budget 
between civilian and defense technologies.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is, perhaps, no other 
place in the Federal Government, than NIST, where for so little money 
you can accomplish so much to stimulate good, long-term economic 
growth.
  NIST's missions and approach is to work with industry right from the 
start. Priorities are focused by industry, and industry shares in the 
cost and conduct of the work. In this way, the yield is direct 
investments and benefits for our Nation's businesses.
  NIST's laboratories are a critical component in the U.S. game plan 
for succeeding in the critical industries of the 21st century. NIST 
technologies speed market acceptance of advanced technologies by giving 
buyers and sellers objective, technically sound methods to agree on 
product performance and characteristics. The NIST labs serve all 
sectors of U.S. industry through tightly focused research programs and 
services that address industry's needs for measurement and scientific 
technology. While I appreciate the committee's efforts to provide as 
much funding as possible for NIST's laboratories, I hope, as this bill 
moves to the Senate, that the budget for its core missions will not be 
overlooked. The bill provides $279 million for NIST's laboratory 
programs, a reduction of $37 million from the budget request.
  The committee, unfortunately, was forced to cut the request for badly 
needed renovations and modernization of facilities for the NIST 
Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO, facilities. This funding is vital 
for NIST's future. In the 25 years since NIST's Gaithersburg 
laboratories were completed, scientific laboratory facilities have 
changed dramatically.
  The deterioration of NIST facilities has already made it impossible 
for NIST to provide some United States manufacturers with services on a 
par with our Japanese and European competitors. The deterioration of 
these facilities is continuing at an alarming rate. We simply cannot 
afford to let NIST drift into second-rate status.

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my appreciation again to the 
chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in providing funding 
for NIST in this very difficult budget environment. While we all share 
in efforts to cut Federal spending and reduce the Federal deficit, I 
believe we need to nurture and build on NIST's nearly unique-in-
Government expertise in working with civilian industrial firms to 
bolster our international competitiveness.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a member of the committee.
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my opposition to the rule, I do rise in support 
of the bill. If, as Mr. Rogers said, take away peacekeeping and we have 
a fine bill.
  But, I am concerned about the President's new peacekeeping policy. 
For example, the United Nations has increased its peacekeeping staff by 
99 percent in the last 9 months. You can be sure the United Nations did 
not reduce staff in other parts of its operation to cover that 
increase. This administration now provides intelligence information to 
the United Nations on a regular basis, the only nation that provides 
such information acknowledged to come from its intelligence service. 
Most alarming of all, U.N. Ambassador Albright does not feel that U.S. 
personnel are at any special risk in peacekeeping operations.
  Frankly, there are other serious questions about the President's new 
peacekeeping policy. Despite the President's allegedly tough new 
criteria, which are actually no different than the criteria announced 
at the President's speech before the United Nations last fall, the 
United States has not voted against a single peacekeeping mission.
  Second, despite these new criteria, allegations have arisen that the 
United States vote swapped peacekeeping votes in the Security Council 
with the French last fall. Although we have requested the U.S.-U.N. 
cables which might clarify this situation, so far the administration, 
citing executive privilege, has refused to supply Congress with those 
cables.
  Finally, it appears that Colin Powell's language to protect U.S. 
soldiers serving in the field in U.N. operations was removed at the 
request of Ambassador Albright after U.N. Secretary General Boutros 
Ghali objected. Again, attempts to clarify this situation have been 
stonewalled.
  So again I commend the subcommittee for their hard work, but I hope 
the subcommittee will continue to closely monitor proposed peacekeeping 
missions.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Cramer].
  (Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4603. On 
behalf of child abuse victims, I want to congratulate the chairman, the 
ranking member and the staffs for their fine inclusion of these issues 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4603, the Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1995.
  First, I would like to commend Chairman Alan Mollohan for his 
leadership in moving through the Appropriations Committee and bringing 
to the House floor this important bill that will provide the necessary 
capital to address the problems of child abuse, to fund needed 
anticrime initiatives, to assist small and emerging businesses, and to 
support efforts in developing and implementing strategies to enable 
U.S. industry to fully realize the commercial benefits of new 
technology.
  Additionally, I would like to commend the staff for their 
professionalism and attention to details.
  Mr. Chairman, the Appropriations Committee has been charged with an 
almost insurmountable task: funding significant programs on the one 
hand and acting in accordance with budgetary limitations requirements 
on the other hand. Chairman Mollohan and the other members of the 
subcommittee have performed admirably.
  I am very supportive of one particular section of this bill. The bill 
includes funding for the Children's Advocacy Center Program that was 
authorized in the 1992 amendments to the Victims of Child Abuse Act. 
The administration included the Children's Advocacy Center Program in 
its 1995 budget request.
  Why is this program important? It is important for several reasons. 
Based on 1990 revised data, States received and referred for 
investigation approximately 1.7 million cases of child abuse out of an 
estimated report of 2.6 million children who are the alleged subjects 
of child abuse and neglect. In 1991, the number of cases referred for 
investigation rose to nearly 1.8 million reports. The number reported 
in 1991 represents an increase of approximately 2.4 percent from 1990 
data.
  In 1992, approximately 918,263 substantiated and indicated victims of 
child maltreatment cases were reported from 49 States. Of these, 
approximately 14 percent (129,982) were sexually abused. The Carnegie 
Corporation of New York reported, in its publication Starting Points, 
that one in three victims of physical abuse is a baby less than 1 year 
old and that in 1990, more 1-year-olds were maltreated than in any 
previous year for which data are available. Additionally, Starting 
Points reported ``almost 90 percent of children who died of abuse and 
neglect in 1990 were under the age of 5; and 53 percent were less than 
1 year old.'' Further, based upon its annual telephone survey of 
States, the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse reported 
that at least three children a day die from physical abuse inflicted by 
a parent or caretaker.

  The Children's Advocacy Center Program addresses this problem. The 
mission of this program is to provide technical assistance, training 
and networking opportunities to help communities establish and maintain 
child abuse prevention, intervention, prosecution and investigation 
programs which provide quality services for helping victims of child 
abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. The purpose of Children's 
Advocacy Centers is to help abused children by providing a safe and 
comfortable environment designed to meet their needs for support and 
protection.
  The cornerstone of this program is the use of multidisciplinary 
teams. A multidisciplinary team consists of representatives from law 
enforcement, child protective services, prosecution, victim advocates, 
medicine and mental health who meet on a regular basis to review cases 
and issue joint recommendations in the best interest of each child. The 
multidisciplinary team concept that is incorporated in the Children's 
Advocacy Program works to coordinate the activity of all involved 
public and private agencies to intervene in the lives of abused 
children in a meaningful way and to ensure that the judicial system 
does not revictimize them through repeated interviews and examinations.
  Preventing the inadvertent revictimization of an abused child by the 
judicial and social service systems in their efforts to protect the 
child is a major goal of this program. As a consequence of a 
coordinated response, child victims are spared the pain and confusion 
of multiple interviews by prosecutors, protective service workers and 
social workers.
  This program may not be a panacea for the increasing problem of child 
abuse. However, it is more than a first step toward addressing the 
problem. This program has served and will continue to serve as a model 
for communities that are working to focus attention and efforts on the 
best interests of the child and nonoffending family members.
  Funding this program speaks volumes to the House of Representatives' 
commitment to support a necessary profamily and anticrime initiative. 
Without question, this program improves the lives of communities, 
children and nonoffending family members. Communities from Hawaii to 
Vermont and cities as diverse as Miami and Salt Lake City have 
established multidisciplinary teams and mobilized professionals to 
respond to child sexual abuse. In every instance, when the model 
outlined in the 1992 amendments to the Victims of Child Abuse Act has 
been incorporated into a community's unique program, that community has 
seen positive results.
  Mr. Chairman, the Children's Advocacy Center Program is an effective 
response to child abuse. I commend Chairman Mollohan for his leadership 
efforts. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, in my district in the neighborhoods of 
Macomb and Oakland Counties, Byrne program funds in this bill support 
multi-jurisdictional anticrime task forces to crack down on drug 
dealers, auto theft rings, juvenile gangs and other criminals who 
operate across municipal borders.
  In April, the Attorney General, Janet Reno, met with local chiefs in 
my district. She heard firsthand why it is so important to continue 
full funding for these local anticrime task forces. A number of us 
battled together to restore full funding. With the help and leadership 
of the chairman of the subcommittee, this has now been accomplished. 
Today the House has a chance to make sure that all of our local police 
departments have the resources they need to put criminals behind bars. 
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support for this hard-
won Byrne grant funding.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Taylor-Wolf 
amendment.
  The guidelines promulgated by the EEOC are irresponsible; they 
redefine harassment beyond the established legal standard and will 
place employers in the awkward position of having to disallow religious 
expression in order to avoid litigious suits by disgruntled employees.
  Religious expression has adequate protection under the Constitution 
and through numerous Supreme Court cases which have sided with the 
individual's right to the free expression of religion. Individuals have 
been protected from discrimination long before such guidelines were 
proposed. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has provided that 
protection without these overzealous guidelines for the last 30 years--
the Constitution has provided protection for the last 205.
  The EEOC's efforts to regulate religious expression, however well 
intended, must be stopped. The Taylor-Wolf amendment is an important 
move in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  (Mr. MANZULLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, they are the gangs who fight over turf, 
and who fuel their drug supplies by killing each other and those whose 
property they steal so they can buy more drugs. They broke into Nancy 
Slaughter's Washington, DC apartment looking for money; they took cd's, 
clothing, $25 worth of food stamps and a child's piggy bank. Nancy 
pleaded with the gunmen to spare her children, Denise, 16, Nancy 10, 
and Dennis, Jr, 3: ``if you believe in God, please don't shoot my 
children, shoot me instead.'' A gunman replied, ``I don't believe in 
God'' before he put a gun to the head of Denise Slaughter, age 16, and 
fired once, killing her. Imagine, a child murdered in front of her 
mother by a gunman looking for money for drugs.
  And in Chicago, there is one murder every 10 hours, much of which is 
caused by the battle for control of lucrative drug territories.
  Drugs are killing our children, both by kids using drugs and dying on 
them, or gangs shooting our kids to get more drugs.
  The majority of violent crimes are caused by the influx of drugs into 
the country. We must stop the drugs. The Justice Department bill that 
we are debating today provides programs to stop these drugs, and the 
money for these programs was added back by both parties after the 
administration proposed to reduce or cut them:
  First, I am especially pleased that the Edward Byrne Memorial Block 
Grant Program received $804.3 million--a 125 percent increase over last 
year. This program funds statewide antidrug abuse strategies that 
support Federal drug priorities, including multijurisdictional task 
forces such as the SLANT program in northern Illinois.
  Second, another tremendous boost is increased funding to hire more 
Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI and Immigration and Naturalization agents. 
We can't even wage a skirmish against drugs without these agencies help 
in stopping illicit drugs from entering this country. I'm pleased that 
the Appropriations Committee rejected the Clinton administration's 
request and added money to hire 75 additional DEA agents; 160 new 
special FBI agents; and 700 INS border patrol agents.
  Mr. Chairman, I plead with the Members of this body to pass the 
Justice bill. The memory of Denise Slaughter commands it. The children 
of America deserve it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, before I yield the final 30 seconds, I 
would like to urge support of this bill with the exception of the 
peacekeeping provision which we will have a provision on later in our 
consideration of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield our final 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank them for the additional 
Border Patrol with the Hunter-Moore-Cunningham amendment. Why? There 
are 16,000 illegal aliens just in California prisons. There are 84,000 
aliens nationwide. That costs with the health care, the law 
enforcement, and education, $37 billion a year for the U.S. Government. 
Take that times five and we have got about $185 billion. We are looking 
at a way to pay for health care in this country. Take just half of it, 
$93 billion, if we used the lowest absolute figure we could. We could 
go a long way to pay for health care, education, and the other things.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield our final 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], a distinguished new Member of 
Congress.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, as a former Michigan State police trooper, 
I support funding in the bill for the Byrne grant program. These funds 
will provide for 22 specific prevention programs.
  Mr. Chairman, 153 Members of the House signed a letter to the 
Committee on Appropriations asking that the Byrne grants be funded at 
no less than the 1994 level.
  I appreciate the chairman and his committee approval of that request. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Byrne grant formula and our 
Nation's 881 multijurisdictional drug task forces and vote against any 
amendments which would reduce the Bryne grant formula level.
  Mr. Chairman, in summation we have a Federal program that works. We 
give the Federal money to the States, then the States decide which of 
the Bryne grant programs to fund. The Federal Government is not putting 
unfunded Federal mandates, we are not imposing mandates on States. 
Rather we are giving the States a discretionary pool of funds so they 
can best decide how to fight crime at the State and local level.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate members of the 
committee for their recommendation of $70 million for the Information 
Infrastructure Grant Program under the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration [NTIA] for demonstration of 
telecommunications technology applications. A firm investment in the 
technologies of the future is essential in keeping the United States 
economically competitive in the world market.
  Nowhere is the need for advanced technologies greater than in today's 
educational system. Most school systems are just beginning to develop 
and implement new comprehensive educational technology policies. As 
local and State policies are incorporating the use of technologies such 
as fiber optic transmission and video and audio CD-ROM disks, teacher 
training in the use of these technologies is more than ever a primary 
focus. Boards of education are providing incentives to teachers and 
administrators to be more creative in their use of educational 
technologies to prepare their school systems to meet the challenges of 
the 21st century.
  I believe that the creative use of technology in the classroom by 
students, teachers, businesses and the community will bring limitless 
opportunities and benefits to our educational system. I commend the 
committee for including report language, which I requested, which urges 
NTIA to provide a grant, if warranted, to the Modern Educational 
Technology Center, Inc. [METEC] located in Rockville, MD to coordinate 
school-business-community partnerships for the development of new and 
innovative educational technologies and training methods. I believe 
that METEC is uniquely positioned to be a model for the rest of the 
Nation of parent-school-business partnerships that promote our 
educational goals and foster economic development.
  Again, I reiterate my support for the Appropriations Committee's 
recommendation of $70 million for the National Information 
Infrastructure Grant Program. The additional dollars that the committee 
has wisely appropriated will enable more communities to have access to 
the necessary Federal resources so that everyone will have the 
opportunity to become travelers on the national information 
infrastructure highway. The dollars we invest today will enable the 
U.S. to better educate its citizens and remain economically strong.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, but I do 
wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to one area where we can--
and should--achieve some savings.
  Over 11 years ago, the Appropriations Committee included the 
following in its report:

       The committee * * * continues to be concerned about 
     possible duplication or competition with private sector 
     efforts * * *. The committee directs ITA to continue to take 
     steps to ensure that private sector efforts for expanding the 
     export markets of U.S. industries are enhanced and that ITA 
     does not duplicate or compete with the private sector in 
     those areas where the private sector can and does offer 
     quality opportunities to U.S. firms. The committee expects 
     ITA to work closely with the private sector, particularly 
     private sector event organizers, and other Government 
     agencies including the Small Business Administration to 
     eliminate duplication and competition with private sector 
     firms in the solicitation of participants for overseas trade 
     shows and in the provision of marketing and exhibit services 
     at such shows.

  Mr. Chairman, 11 years later, the Department of Commerce still 
refuses to allow the private sector to participate in the Paris Air 
Show through the certification program. A constituent of mine who has 
extensive experience in this field has, in fact, just recently been 
denied certification for the Paris Air Show. The result is not only a 
total lack of cooperation and coordination, but head-to-head 
competition that undermines the ability of both private firms and the 
Federal Government to effectively and efficiently serve the needs of 
U.S. aviation exporters.
  Furthermore, I want my colleagues to know that the Commerce 
Department's aviation trade show activities have cost $645,349 in the 
past 4 years when there are private firms who are ready and willing to 
bear the financial risk involved in many aspects of these air shows. 
Not only does running the pavilion incur direct expenses, but the 
Commerce Department actually charges other Federal agencies such as 
NASA and NOAA for display space adding to the total cost of these 
shows.
  Mr. Chairman, the private sector is quite capable of running the U.S. 
pavilion at the Paris Air Show, as it does at other air shows around 
the world. Private sector involvement will not mean a reduction in 
quality of the pavilion; private companies will still need the 
Department's certification to perform this task and should still work 
closely with relevant U.S. Government agencies. Allowing private 
companies to compete to run the U.S. pavilion would save Federal funds 
without harming efforts to help promote American exports. It is a step 
that is long overdue.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule. 
Yesterday, I testified to have a limitation amendment made in order 
prior to the preferential motion to rise.
  My amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill 
would have allowed no funds to be made available to carry out the 
return to Mexico of any Mexican national who is a prisoner convicted of 
a felony in the United States without a final order of deportation.
  Under a 1977 treaty between the United States and Mexico, Mexican 
nationals convicted of an felony in the United States may be returned 
to Mexico to complete their sentences if they request it. While this 
can alleviate some prison overcrowding, unfortunately most transfers 
are being done on a voluntary departure basis rather than on a formal 
order of deportation.
  There are immigration consequences to this shortcut. Persons who 
voluntarily depart can keep illegally re-entering the United States 
without threat of serious penalties. Formal deportation, however, 
carries the threat of 15-year imprisonment for those who break the law 
and re-enter.
  The re-entry penalty was enacted to be a strong deterrent to criminal 
aliens who have been deported from our country. There's no use in 
having a strong deterrent law on the books if we are going to 
circumvent it by allowing voluntary departure for criminal aliens who 
should be deported.
  Since I cannot offer my amendment before the preferential motion to 
rise, I am supporting the attempt to defeat the preferential motion to 
rise by Representatives Lightfoot and Livingston and urge other Members 
to do so as well.
  If this motion is defeated then I intend to offer my limitation 
amendment to clarify what the Nation's priorities should be in the 
handling of these transfers of criminal aliens.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from West 
Virginia, the subcommittee chairman, for the fine job that he has done 
in developing this legislation which provides funding for a number of 
important ocean, coastal, fisheries, and maritime programs.
  In support of a key element of the National Shipbuilding Initiative 
passed by Congress last year to help revitalize U.S. commercial 
shipbuilding, the bill provide $25 million for the Title XI Loan 
Guarantee Program.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for working with me to include these funds. Although the 
amount is less than the request, I look forward to working with 
Chairman Mollohan to improve upon this figure as the appropriations 
process continues.
  Currently. U.S. shipyards are completely dependent on military ship 
construction, a rapidly declining market. Absent a revitalization of 
commercial shipbuilding, U.S. yards face the possibility of permanent 
closure, endangering our defense industrial base and our ability to 
meet future defense needs.
  The President and Transportation Secretary Pena have proposed a five-
step plan to assist U.S. shipyards in their transition from defense 
production to commercial construction. A vital part of this plan is 
adequate funding for the title XI program which now has been expanded 
to allow U.S. shipbuilders to utilize these loan guarantees for the 
export market.
  Regulations for the expanded program have recently been issued and 
generated intense interest. By the end of the month the Maritime 
Administration expects to have received loan guarantee applications for 
over 1.9 million dollars' worth of ship construction--ships that will 
be built in U.S. yards. This means jobs for American workers--good 
paying jobs--and increased revenues for State and local governments and 
the Federal Government.
  Without additional appropriations for this program, MarAd will 
temporarily have to cease consideration of applications for loan 
guarantees for vessels to be built in the United States.
  In addition to these important maritime provisions, the bill also 
provides vital funds for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration [NOAA] to begin rebuilding our decimated fisheries and 
to manage our threatened coastal resources. The bill provides 
desperately needed increases to improve the scientific basis for 
fisheries management, to build sustainable fisheries, to rebuild a 
healthy fishing industry, and to enhance seafood production through 
aquaculture. In addition, it provides support for the development and 
implementation of endangered species recovery plans and for the 
implementation of recent amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act.
  The bill provides increases for marine sanctuaries, estuarine 
research reserves, and costal zone management. As the population 
increases in our coastal regions, these investments will pay large 
dividends because they provide recreational opportunities, conserve 
increasingly threatened marine resources, and promote managed growth in 
the coastal zone.
  This bill provides necessary funding for many national priorities and 
I urge its passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4603

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend our subcommittee's new chairman 
for his outstanding work in producing a bill that addresses our 
Nation's law enforcement and economic development needs as well as 
numerous other responsibilities, under very tight budgetary 
constraints. I also want to recognize and thank Mr. Rogers for his 
exemplary contribution as the subcommittee's ranking minority member. 
Chairman Mollohan and Mr. Rogers deserve the appreciation of this 
House, and this bill deserves its support.
  It is a good bill. We had some difficult choices to make, but under 
our chairman's direction, we made those choices well. The bill contains 
a total increase in spending of $2.8 billion over fiscal year 1994--
almost all of which is targeted to fund programs created under the 
crime bill which is now the subject of a conference committee. This 
increase notwithstanding, the bill is still $1.2 billion less than the 
administration requested and contains a number of specific spending 
cuts and streamlining measures.
  One good example is our broadcasts to Cuba, whose budgets have become 
increasingly difficult to justify in these tight fiscal times. I am 
leased that the subcommittee took the bull by the horns--acting 
unanimously to end funding for TV Marti and significantly reduce 
expenditures for Radio Marti. This represents a roughly $19 million 
victory for the American taxpayer.
  The subcommittee based its decision to pull the plug on TV Marti and 
rein in spending at Radio Marti on the results of an independent panel 
report. The panel--created last year as a compromise between supporters 
and opponents of the program--was instructed to determine whether or 
not TV Marti is technically sound, cost-effective, and is consistently 
being received by such a significant Cuban audience as to warrant its 
continuation. In its March 31 report, the panel confirmed what experts 
have been telling us all along: the necessary operational conditions do 
not exist to make TV Marti work because of jamming by the Castro 
government.
  In refusing to continue funding TV Marti, the subcommittee also 
specifically rejected spending any more money to make broadcasting 
enhancements to fix the failed program. The panel report proposed 
attempting to switch TV Marti's signal from a VHF to UHF frequencies. 
But this costly proposition was promptly and widely criticized by 
numerous technical experts--including the National Association of 
Broadcasters and MSTV, a national association of commercial and public 
television stations--as destined to fail.
  Another place the subcommittee pursued ways of making the Government 
smarter and more discriminate in where and how it spends money is in 
our operations abroad. The report accompanying the bill contains a 
provision I authored directing the State Department to prepare a pilot 
program for co-locating support services for U.S. missions overseas. 
Such a joint administrative operation already exists in Vienna, where 
one main center serves the various missions headquartered there, 
including the United States missions to the International Atomic Energy 
Agency and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. I 
expect the benefits of replicating the Vienna model on a regional level 
will be increased efficiency and reduced expense in future fiscal 
years.
  Improving operations is also the key goal of critical investments the 
subcommittee was able to make in supporting a number of Commerce 
Department programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration [NOAA], the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology [NIST], and the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration [NTIA]. Many of these initiatives will help revitalize 
the American economy and improve the environment for generations to 
come. One such project is NOAA's Health of the Atmosphere initiative, 
which promises to provide scientific information invaluable to 
implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.
  I'm also pleased that we were able to restore funding for the Wind 
Profiler Demonstration Network--a network which NOAA has called an 
unqualified success. Given the crippling economic and human costs of 
unexpected severe weather phenomena, it strikes me as unwise to shut 
down a system that's providing vital and accurate forecasting 
information. Were this network to be dismantled, it could also 
jeopardize our ability to route aircraft more efficiently, improve the 
safety of NASA launches, and to maintain a competitive edge in profiler 
technology.
  The subcommittee was also able to provide a significant funding 
increase for NIST's scientific and technical research program, which 
represents NIST's core research function. This, coupled with an 
increase in funding for the industrial technology services program, 
will allow NIST to fund more of the research necessary to improve 
American industries' global competitiveness.
  Funding for NTIA is vital to support the administration's efforts to 
help develop an information superhighway. NTIA is the lead agency 
working to make the information superhighway a reality. The 
subcommittee's support for NTIA will also go a long way to making up 
for a decade of neglect of public telecommunication facilities.
  The subcommittee also made critical investments in some basic 
programs that matter to every American every day. Answering the call 
for safer streets, we've even been able to increase funding for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
and for organized crime drug enforcement task forces--this means more 
agents on neighborhood streets.

  In particular, the subcommittee has significantly enhanced funding 
for the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program. Byrne grants have 
proven a valuable resource for State law enforcement programs, such as 
drug and alcohol treatment and programs to divert youth away from 
criminal activities. Under an expanded Byrne Program, which Chairman 
Mollohan worked with the authorizers to create, funding for States will 
more than double. For any State that's a big deal. For instance, 
Colorado received roughly $5 million in Byrne grants in fiscal year 
1994. Under the expanded Byrne Program, Colorado would receive over $11 
million next year. That's a positive step in our fight against crime.
  I'm also pleased that we were able to restore funding--$14.491 
million--for the Regional Information Sharing System [RISS]. The 
information received by State law enforcement agencies from the various 
RISS databases is immensely useful in tracking criminal activities 
across State lines.
  The bill also includes funding for the National Institute of 
Corrections [NIC], which is located in Longmont, CO. The NIC is the 
national center where State correction departments can turn to for 
information on how to make their operations more efficient and cost 
effective, and I'm glad we were able to provide the funding that they 
need to continue their excellent work.
  I'd also like to say a little about funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation [LSC]. The $415 million we propose is far less than LSC's 
$500 million request--and far less than it needs. One of the basic 
principles of our system of justice is that every American is entitled 
to a fair hearing in a court of law, and we have an obligation to 
provide legal representation to those who can't afford it. The poor are 
entitled competent representation, and this is as important in civil 
cases as it is in criminal. The LSC is an essential part of the effort 
to provide this assistance. I support their efforts and hope that we 
will be able to provide more resources for this valuable program in the 
future.
  Another issue that each year attracts a strong divergence of views is 
the rising bill for the U.S. share of membership in various 
international organizations, including the United Nations [U.N.] and 
its affiliates. Our contributions to U.N. operations--particularly U.N. 
peacekeeping activities--is an issue of considerable debate within the 
subcommittee and, for that matter, across the Nation. Beyond 
controversies over U.S. participation in and financing of U.N. 
activities, however, is the frightening fact that the demand for 
peacekeeping operations is growing rapidly. The subcommittee's report 
includes language I requested which takes note of the need to address 
this dilemma by addressing a root cause.
  Noting that arms sales stimulate arms races, which in turn undermine 
international security and increase the danger of regional conflicts, 
the subcommittee's report urges the administration to complete its 
ongoing review of U.S. policy on conventional arms sales as soon as 
possible. Further, the report language encourages the administration to 
consider initiating negotiations among all major arms supplier 
governments to agree on a code of conduct based on mutual restraint.
  In sum, Mr. Chairman, the bill we present today deals realistically 
with the fiscal constraints every appropriations subcommittee was faced 
with in a way that provides the resources we need to continue important 
law enforcement and economic development programs. I urge its adoption. 
And, once again, I thank the chairman for his excellent work.

                              {time}  1810

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           justice assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Missing 
     Children's Assistance Act, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith, and with the Victims of 
     Crime Act of 1984, as amended, $94,100,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 1001 of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of which 
     $750,000 of the funds provided under the Missing Children's 
     Program shall be made available as a grant to a national 
     voluntary organization representing Alzheimer patients and 
     families to plan, design, and operate the ``Safe Return'' 
     Program.


               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for 
     State and Local Narcotics Control and Justice Assistance 
     Improvements, notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 
     of said Act, $68,500,000, to remain available until expended, 
     as authorized by section 1001 of title I of said Act, as 
     amended by Public Law 102-534 (106 Stat. 3524), of which: (a) 
     $50,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter A of subpart 2 of part E of title I of said Act, for 
     discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs; (b) 
     $12,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of 
     chapter B of subpart 2 of part E of title I of said Act, for 
     Correctional Options Grants; (c) $6,000,000 shall be 
     available for implementation of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation's National Instant Background Check System; and 
     (d) $500,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions 
     of subtitle B of title I of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 
     (Public Law 102-519), notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 131(b)(2) of said Act, for grants to be used in 
     combating motor vehicle theft: Provided, That of the funds 
     made available in fiscal year 1995 under chapter A of subpart 
     2 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, as amended: (a) $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for the activities of the District of Columbia 
     Metropolitan Area Drug Enforcement Task Force; and (b) not to 
     exceed $500,000 shall be available to make grants or enter 
     contracts to carry out the Denial of Federal Benefits 
     program under the Controlled Substances Act, as amended by 
     the Crime Control Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 862): Provided 
     further, That funds made available in fiscal year 1995 
     under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, may be 
     obligated for programs to assist States in the litigation 
     processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus 
     petitions.


                   amendment offered by mr. mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 3, strike 
     everything after line 16 down to and including the word 
     ``theft'' on line 20, and insert the following: the anti Car 
     Theft Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-519), for grants to be used 
     in combating motor vehicle theft, of which $200,000 shall be 
     available pursuant to subtitle B of title I of said Act, and 
     of which $300,000 shall be available pursuant to section 306 
     of title III of said Act.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we have had a chance to look at the 
amendment. We find it in order and agree to it and have no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance, to be allocated and distributed in 
     accordance with section 506(a) of part E of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 3756), notwithstanding the provisions of 
     section 511 of said Act, $804,280,000, to remain available 
     until expended, to carry out the provisions of--
       (1) subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, for grants 
     to States under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Programs,
       (2) section 501 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
     of 1986, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1365), to reimburse States for 
     costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, and
       (3) section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention 
     Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 (107 Stat. 1536) to upgrade 
     State criminal history records.


                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974, as amended, including salaries and 
     expenses in connection therewith to be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriations for Justice Assistance, 
     $146,500,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized by section 299 of part I of title II and section 
     506 of title V of said Act, as amended by Public Law 102-586, 
     of which: (a) $100,000,000 shall be available for expenses 
     authorized by parts A, B, and C of title II of said Act; (b) 
     $7,500,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     sections 281 and 282 of part D of title II of said Act for 
     prevention and treatment programs relating to juvenile gangs; 
     (c) $15,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     section 285 of part E of title II of said Act; (d) $4,000,000 
     shall be available for expenses authorized by part G of title 
     II of said Act for juvenile mentoring programs; and (e) 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for expenses authorized by 
     title V of said Act for incentive grants for local 
     delinquency prevention programs.
       In addition, for grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990, as amended, $11,250,000, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by sections 214B, 218, and 224 
     of said Act, of which: (a) $500,000 shall be available for 
     expenses authorized by section 213 of said Act for regional 
     children's advocacy centers; (b) $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for expenses authorized by section 214 of said Act 
     for local children's advocacy centers; (c) $2,000,000 shall 
     be available for technical assistance and training, as 
     authorized by section 214A of said Act, of which $1,500,000 
     is for a grant to the American Prosecutor Research 
     Institute's National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, 
     and of which $500,000 is for a grant to the National Network 
     of Child Advocacy Centers; (d) $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for training and technical assistance, as authorized by 
     section 217(b)(1) of said Act for a grant to the National 
     Court Appointed Special Advocates program; (e) $5,000,000 
     shall be available for expenses authorized by section 
     217(b)(2) of said Act to initiate and expand local court 
     appointed special advocate programs; and (f) $750,000, 
     notwithstanding section 224(b) of said Act, shall be 
     available to develop and distribute model technical 
     assistance and training programs to improve the handling of 
     child abuse and neglect cases, as authorized by section 
     223(a) of said Act, for a grant to the National Council of 
     Juvenile and Family Court Judges.


                           community policing

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized in H.R. 3355, the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, for the Cops on the Beat 
     Program, including salaries and expenses in connection 
     therewith to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriations for Justice Assistance, $1,332,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                    public safety officers benefits

       For payments authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), 
     as amended, such sums as are necessary, to remain available 
     until expended, as authorized by section 6093 of public Law 
     100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340), and, in addition, $2,072,000, 
     to remain available until expended, for payments as 
     authorized by section 1201(b) of said Act.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings) having assumed the chair, Mr. Brown of California, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1994, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________